Former rebels: CERNET case dismissal does not erase truth on insurgency support networks

CEBU CITY — For former cadres of the Communist Party of the Philippines’s underground and urban network, the dismissal of the terrorism financing case against the Community Empowerment Resource Network (CERNET) is not the end of the conversation.

To them, the ruling does not mean that former rebel witnesses were lying. It does not mean that the support networks they described never existed. It simply means that the court found a legal defect in the case as filed.

On May 15, the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City dismissed the case against 27 officers, directors, and staff members of CERNET after granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by their lawyers. The court said that the acts allegedly charged “do not constitute a crime under the law in force at the time of their commission.”

Activist and environmental groups, especially from the national democratic organizations, immediately welcomed the ruling. They called it a “victory against red-tagging and legal harassment.” Some groups also framed the dismissal as proof that allegations linking development work to insurgency support were baseless.

Caution

But former rebels familiar with the CPP-NPA-NDFP’s urban and legal networks cautioned against that conclusion.

Arian Jane Ramos, Buklod Kapayapaan’s Head of Legal Affairs, said that the ruling turned on a question of law, particularly whether the acts charged could be prosecuted under the applicable law at the time they allegedly happened. 

“It did not make a final historical judgment on whether the CPP-NPA-NDFP had relied on aboveground organizations, development networks, resource generation channels, and legal personalities to sustain its armed struggle,” she argued.

Samuel, a former urban cadre of the CPP in Cebu, meanwhile, said former rebels see the dismissal as a “small” setback that should push government agencies and prosecutors to seriously review how these cases are built.

“Isa sa nakikita naming kulang sa mga kaso ay ang suporta at proteksiyon sa mga FR na nagwi-witness,” Samuel said. “Mahalaga ang testimonya ng mga dating kasapi, pero kung walang sapat na paghahanda, suporta, at proteksiyon, mahirap talaga dalhin ang katotohanan hanggang korte.” [One of the gaps we see in these cases is the support and protection for the FRs who serve as witnesses. The testimony of former members is crucial, but without adequate preparation, support, and protection, it is truly difficult to bring the truth all the way to court.] 

According to Samuel, the issue is not simply whether former rebels are willing to speak. Many are, he said, but the legal system must be prepared to receive their testimonies properly, corroborate them with documents, and protect witnesses from intimidation, harassment, or public vilification.

Not on armed guerillas alone

Former rebels have long argued that the communist movement did not survive on armed guerrillas alone. Based on their accounts in peace and security forums, the CPP-NPA-NDFP maintained political, logistical, propaganda, and resource-generation mechanisms in both rural and urban spaces.

These mechanisms, they said, often operated behind legal identities and advocacy platforms. Some were involved in recruitment, political education, fundraising, propaganda work, logistical support, and campaigns that helped protect or sustain the underground movement.

This is why, for former rebels, the dismissal of one case cannot be treated as proof that the entire discussion on insurgency support networks is false.

They stressed that the court’s ruling should be respected. Due process remains essential, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as terrorism financing. But they also warned against using the dismissal to silence former rebels who have been speaking about what they personally witnessed inside the movement.

For former cadres, the danger is that every legal setback is quickly converted into a propaganda victory. A case dismissed on legal or procedural grounds can be presented to the public as total vindication. In the process, the lived experiences of former rebels are again dismissed as fabrication, coercion, or state scripting.

Samuel said this is painful for many former rebels who risk public attacks when they speak.

“Hindi ibig sabihin na na-dismiss ang kaso, wala nang katotohanan ang sinabi ng mga FR,” he said. “Ang ibig sabihin lang, kailangang mas maayos, mas matibay, at mas protektado ang paghawak sa mga ganitong kaso.” [Just because the case was dismissed, it doesn't mean there is no truth to what the FRs said. It simply means that the handling of these kinds of cases needs to be more organized, stronger, and more secure.]

Blurring the line

Civil liberties advocates have also emphasized that activism, humanitarian work, environmental advocacy, and criticism of government policies are protected democratic activities. Former rebels interviewed in various forums have acknowledged this distinction, saying legitimate activism should not be equated with armed rebellion.

But they also insist that the public must not be blind to how the CPP historically blurred the line between legal activism and underground revolutionary work.

For them, the real challenge is not to criminalize dissent, but to tell the truth with evidence. That means distinguishing genuine civic work from clandestine support to armed struggle. It also means strengthening case preparation, protecting witnesses, and ensuring that testimonies are backed by documents, financial records, organizational links, and other admissible evidence.

For Ramos, the CERNET dismissal has therefore reopened a difficult question. “How should the State pursue accountability for insurgency support networks without weakening civil liberties or mishandling cases in court?” she asked.

“it should begin with taking their testimonies seriously. Not as shortcuts to conviction.  We have to consider them as leads that must be carefully documented, corroborated, and protected.”

For those who once lived inside the CPP’s underground and urban machinery, the ruling does not erase what they saw and knew. It only reminds them that truth, if it is to survive the courtroom, must be carried by stronger cases, better preparation, and real protection for the witnesses who dare to speak.